ترسیم نقشه دانش حوزه کتابخانه‌های دیجیتالی در ایران: تحلیل هم‌رخدادی واژگان

نویسندگان

دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف ترسیم نقشه دانش تولیدات علمی ایران در حوزه کتابخانه‌­های دیجیتالی انجام شد. رویکرد این پژوهش علم‌­سنجی است، و از تحلیل هم‌­رخدادی واژگان و شاخص‌­های تحلیل شبکه‌­های اجتماعی استفاده شد. تعداد 554 مدرک علمی شامل کتاب، مقاله تألیفی، مقاله همایش‌های داخلی و خارجی، و پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد و دکتری داخل ایران در تمامی رشته‌های علمی که تا پایان سال 1392 به موضوع کتابخانه‌های دیجیتالی پرداخته بودند، مطالعه شد. از سیاهه موضوعی برای گردآوری داده‌ها و از نرم­‌افزارهای گفی و وی.اُ.اِس.ویوور جهت مصورسازی و تحلیل شبکه­‌های موضوعی استفاده شد. زمینه­‌های تحقیق و توسعه در کتابخانه­‌های دیجیتالی به 10 حوزه و 59 زیرحوزه دسته­‌بندی شدند. گروه‌های موضوعی «ارزیابی کتابخانه‌های دیجیتالی؛ محتوا و مجموعه‌های دیجیتال؛ معماری، سیستم‌ها، ابزارها و فناوری‌ها و ...» حوزه­‌های پربسامد و زیرحوزه­‌های موضوعی «ارزیابی کتابخانه‌های دیجیتالی؛ فراداده؛ حفاظت و امنیت محتوا و ...» موضوعات مرکزی و هسته در شبکه موضوعی را شکل دادند؛ و زیرحوزه­‌های موضوعی «استانداردهای نشر الکترونیکی؛ استفاده از تاکسونومی‌ها برای ایجاد دسترسی سازمان‌یافته به مخازن دیجیتالی متنوع؛ سیستم‌های حفاظت دیجیتالی؛ اشتراک دانش؛ و ...» جزو خلاءهای پژوهشی مطالعات کتابخانه‌های دیجیتالی در ایران هستند. نتایج پژوهش گویای این است که پژوهش­‌های اندکی از منظر فنی و کاربردی به آن پرداخته­‌اند. نتایج نشان دادند که ساختار هم‌رخدادی حوزه­‌ها با طی حدود دو دهه از مطالعات این حوزه در ایران نسبت به پژوهش‌های بین­‌المللی از بلوغ کافی برخوردار نبوده و همبستگی مفاهیم درون خوشه‌ها اندک و نامتوازن است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Knowledge map of digital libraries in Iran: a co-word analysis

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehdi Alipour-Hafezi
  • Hadi Ramezani
  • Esmat Momeni
چکیده [English]

This study aimed to knowledge mapping of Digital Libraries (DLs) field in Iran. This is a scientometrics study. In this regard, Social Network and co-word analysis methods were used. 554 research resources such as books, national and international journal papers, conferences articles, and MA and Ph.D. Theses in Iran up to 2013 were studied. Researcher made checklist was used to collext data. Also Gephi and VOSviewer softwares were used to visualize and analyze the subject networks. Researches in the field of DLs were classified into 10 research topics and 59 Subtopics. Findings showed that "Evaluation", "Digital content and collections", "Architecture, systems, tools and technologies" and etc. are higher frequency research topics. Also "Evaluation", "Metadata", "Content preservation and security" and etc. most central and core subtopics in subject networks; Moreover subtopics such as "Electronic publishing standards", "Use of taxonomies to provide unified and organized access to various digital repositories", "Digital preservation systems", "Resource sharing" and etc. are research areas that paied less research attention in Iran. Also results reflect that less researches pay attention to the technical and experimental domains. This show that  domains co-occurrence structure with nearly two decades of studies in this field, compared with international studies, isnot matured and correlation between clusters are little and unbalanced.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Digital library
  • Co-Word Analysis
  • scientific productions
  • Scientometrics
  • Text-mining

مراجع

  1. Abbasi, A., L. Hossain, and L. Leydesdorff. 2012. Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics 6 (3): 403-412.
  2. Arms, W. Y. 2000. Digital libraries. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  3. Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. ICWSM 8: 361-362.
  4. Bauin, S. 1986. Aquaculture: a field by bureaucratic fiat. In M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology, pp. 124-141. Palgrave: Macmillan UK.
  5. Bauin, S., B. Michelet, M. Schweighoffer, and P. Vermeulin. 1991. Using bibliometrics in strategic analysis:“understanding chemical reactions” at the CNRS. Scientometrics 22 (1): 113-137.
  6. Bearman, D. 2007. Digital libraries. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41 (1): 223–272.
  7. Borgman, C. L. 2000. From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: access to information in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: The Mit Press.
  8. Börner, K., and A. Scharnhorst. 2009. Visual conceptualizations and models of science. Journal of Informetrics 3 (3): 161-172.
  9. Börner, K., C. Chen, and K. W. Boyack. 2003. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual review of information science and technology 37 (1): 179-255.
  10. Callon, M., J. P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, and S. Bauin. 1983. From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Social science information 22 (2): 191-235.
  11. Candela, L., D. Castelli, P. Pagano, C. Thanos, Y. Ioannidis, G. Koutrika, et al. 2007. Setting the foundations of digital libraries: the DELOS manifesto. D-Lib Magazine 13 (3/4). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/castelli/03castelli.html (accessed July 10, 2013).
  12. Chen, C. 2013. Mapping scientific frontiers: the quest for knowledge visualization (2nd ed.). London: Springer-Verlag.
  13. Chen, H. 2004. Digital library research in the US: an overview with a knowledge management perspective. Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems 38 (3): 157-167.
  14. Chen, H., and Y. Zhou. 2005. Survey and history of digital library development in the Asia Pacific. In Y. Theng and S. Foo (Eds.), Design and usability of digital libraries: case studies in the Asia pacific. London: Information Science Publishing.
  15. Chowdhury, G. G., and S. Chowdhury. 1999. Digital library research: major issues and trends. Journal of documentation 55 (4): 409-448.
  16. Chowdhury, G., and S. Chowdhury. 2002. Introduction to digital libraries. London: Facet publishing.
  17. Cobo, M. J., A. G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera. 2011. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (7): 1382-1402.
  18. Dong, W. 2009. Analysis on hotspot of digital library in home during 10 years based on co-word analysis. Document Information & Knowledge 5: 58–63.
  19. Erfanmanesh, M., V. A. Rohani, and A. Abrizah. 2012. Co-authorship network of scientometrics research collaboration. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 17 (3): 73-93.
  20. Fox, E. A., and S. R. Urs. 2002. Digital libraries. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36 (1): 503–589.
  21. Fruchterman, T. M., and E. M. Reingold. 1991. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software practice and experience 21 (11): 1129-1164.
  22. Gupta, B. M., and S. Bhattacharya. 2004. A bibliometric approach towards mapping the dynamics of science and technology. DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology 24 (1): 3-8.
  23. He, Q. 1999. Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library trends 48 (1): 133-159.
  24. Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A., and B. Bayat. 2008. Digital libraries in the mirror of the literature: issues and considerations. The Electronic Library 26 (6): 844-862.
  25. Janssens, F., J. Leta, W. Glänzel, and B. De Moor. 2006. Towards mapping library and information science. Information Processing & Management 42 (6): 1614-1642.
  26. Lee, J. Y., H. Kim, and P. J. Kim. 2010. Domain analysis with text mining: Analysis of digital library research trends using profiling methods. Journal of Information Science 36 (2): 144-161.
  27. Lesk, M. 2004. Understanding digital libraries (Second ed.). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
  28. Li Liew, C. 2009. Digital library research 1997-2007: Organisational and people issues. Journal of Documentation 65 (2): 245-266.
  29. Liu, C. S., and X. J. Zhang. 2011. Statistic analysis of the papers on digital libraries. Journal of Modern Information 31 (3): 113–116.
  30. _____, G. Y., J. M. Hu, and H. L. Wang. 2012. A co-word analysis of digital library field in China. Scientometrics 91 (1): 203-217.
  31. _____, W. 2004. The new development of digital libraries in China. In Paper to international symposium on digital libraries and knowledge communities in networked information society (DLKC’04), University of Tsukuba, March 2–5 2004. http://www.kc.tsukuba.ac.jp/dlkc/e-proceedings/papers/dlkc04pp120.pdf (accessed July 10, 2013).
  32. Mahesh, G., and R. Mittal. 2008. Digital libraries in India: a review. Libri 58 (1): 15-24.
  33. Muir, A. 2001. Digital library research. In A. Scammell (Ed.), Handbook of information management, pp. 518-532. London: Aslib-IMI.
  34. Nagatsuka, T., and N. Kando. 2006. Recent trend of digital library research and development in Asia Pacific. Journal of Information Processing and Management 48 (12): 785-792.
  35. Neuman, W. L. 2013. Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (7th ed.). London: Pearson education limited.
  36. Newman, M. E. J. 2010. Networks: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
  37. _____, and M. Girvan. 2004. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E 69 (2): 026113.
  38. Nguyen, S. H. 2013. Trends in digital library research: a knowledge mapping and ontology engineering approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of technology, Sydney.
  39. Pomerantz, J., B. M. Wildemuth, S. Yang, and E. A. Fox. 2006. Curriculum development for digital libraries. In Digital Libraries, 2006. JCDL’06. Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on, pp. 175-184. IEEE.
  40. Qiu, J. P., and F. Ma. 2010. Study on Chinese digital library research papers. Library and Information Service 54 (17): 27–31.
  41. _____, and M. Z. Wang. 2010. The analysis of the digital library research paper in China from the years of 1999 to 2008. Journal of Intelligence 29 (2): 1–5.
  42. Rip, A., and J. Courtial. 1984. Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics 6 (6): 381-400.
  43. Shiri, A. 2003. Digital library research: current developments and trends. Library Review 52 (5): 198-202.
  44. Singh, A. P., and T. A.V. Murthy. 2005. Library without walls. New Delhi: Ess Ess publications.
  45. Su, N. 2009. Analysis of subjects and development in digital libraries research based on co-words analysis method. Journal of Intelligence 28 (6): 15–19.
  46. Tedd, L. A., and J. A. Large. 2005. Digital libraries: principles and practice in a global environment. Munich: K. G. Saur Verlag.
  47. Theng, Y. L., S. Foo, D. Goh, and J. C. Na (Eds.). 2009. Handbook of research on digital libraries: Design, development, and impact. New York: IGI Global.
  48. van Eck, N. J., and L. Waltman. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84 (2): 523-538.
  49. Wei, J. C., and H. Y. Wei. 2011. The analysis of hot topics on digital library research by citespace II. Library Journal 30 (4): 70-88.
  50. Witten, I. H., and D. Bainbridge. 2003. How to build a digital library. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
  51. Zhang, X., and Y. J. Lv. 2010. Research overview on development of digital library in China in the past five years. Researches in Library Science 2: 18–22.
  52. Zhao, L., and Q. Zhang. 2011. Mapping knowledge domains of Chinese digital library research output, 1994–2010. Scientometrics 89 (1): 51-87

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 19 آذر 1401
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 25 بهمن 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 19 آذر 1401

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار